Bible Versions: The King James Only Debate, by David Malcolm Bennett

With so many English versions of the Bible available, why do some still use the King James Version exclusively?

Introduction

We live in an age in which there are many English language translations of the Bible, too many, in fact. There are very good versions and others which are not so good. But which one should we read? To some people the King James Version (KJV) is the only Bible. But are they right?

Like most of my generation (I was born in 1942) I was brought up on the KJV, sometimes called the Authorized Version. Its language, I thought as a child, was old fashioned and at times difficult to understand. However, it was dealing with ancient times, so this did not seem inappropriate.

As I began to take the Bible seriously in my late-teens, the archaic language became more of a problem. I was not yet a Christian, but I had a very strong suspicion that the Bible was, indeed, the Word of God, and I desperately wanted to understand it. However, much of it I found impossible to understand. The Gospels I could generally grasp, and some of the historical parts of the Old Testament, but the OT prophets and the New Testament letters were for the most part a mystery to me. While this was, in part, because I lacked the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the main reason was I just did not understand the language.

When I purchased a modern translation of the New Testament, the understanding began to flood in.

The King James Bible

Many people brought up on the KJV have been happy to let it go, as I did. That does not necessarily mean that any of them respect it less. It is primarily because language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years that in many places the KJV is very hard to understand and, worse, very easy to misunderstand. These people have therefore adopted more recent translations, written in modern English.

However, there are many others who refuse to let the KJV go. To most of these people the KJV is the only translation. Indeed, some regard it as not just a translation, but as a volume that has been directly, divinely inspired. That is, many believe that the King James translation was directly inspired by God, and this, we are told, cannot be said of any other translation. These people argue that if the other translations disagree with the KJV, then those versions must be wrong. As James White says, “most” KJV-Only people seem to believe this. In fact, that is the reason that the debate generates so much heat.¹

All other versions, some argue, are inferior to the KJV. Indeed, to many of these folk, the other translations are not the Word of God. Some insist that all other translations are corrupt, and some even say that that corruption is deliberate. These new translations, some say, are intended to deceive. It is important to note here that they argue for only the King James Bible to be used, not the King James and something else, even if other versions are used only in a secondary capacity. To them the KJV is the Word of God, but none of the other translations are.

The Origins of the KJV

Let us start the consideration of this issue with a quick look at the origins of the KJV. It is important to note that the KJV was not the first English translation

English translation from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments really began in the sixteenth century. Probably the most significant of the translations in that century were the highly influential Tyndale’s New Testament (1526, the Old Testament was completed by others after Tyndale’s martyrdom) and the Geneva Bible (1560).²

King James the First came to the throne of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1601. He was very concerned about the disputes over which translation of the Scriptures should be read in the churches and he did not like the popular Geneva Bible. In 1604 he commissioned a new translation, cleverly enlisting the best available scholars from the different church factions. The resulting King James Bible was eventually published in 1611.³

The main thing to note from this is that the KJV was a translation. It was a translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but the translators also made use of earlier English versions to assist them. Those who translated the KJV never thought that their translation had direct divine inspiration.⁴ In addition, though this Bible was commissioned by King James there is no evidence to indicate that the finished edition was ever officially “authorized” by him.⁵

Perhaps strangely, the KJV was not an immediate success. Some people preferred the older translations.⁶ That does sound familiar. The old and familiar have often been preferred in Christian circles.

However, gradually the KJV’s popularity increased. Eventually it became the translation for English readers and remained so for nearly three hundred years until just after the Second World War.⁷ It is a great translation. In its time it was accurate, very readable and powerful, and in any generation it is majestic. But language changes.

The Debate

The KJV-Only Debate⁸ is often heated and at times unworthy of Christians. If such a debate was being conducted with this vigor and venom four hundred years ago, blood would have been spilt. It is, at times, that unpleasant. One side argues that the KJV has eternal veracity and should never be replaced. The other side states that the KJV is only a translation of the ancient manuscripts and as the English language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years, good modern translations are needed instead.

At times the debate also stoops to great silliness. For example, when I worked in a Bible store a few of our customers were against using any of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures because they believed the KJV was more accurate.

This is also not just an academic issue, but a very practical one. First, Christians need to have access to the best possible and most accurate translations of the Holy Scriptures. In addition, in my Bible store days, some of my customers were scared to buy any edition of the Bible in case it was corrupt. They had been influenced by some of the unfortunate, and at times untrue, comments in this debate. When we arrive at that situation, we can be sure that something has gone very wrong.

Probably, the foremost advocate of the King James Only position is Gayle A. Riplinger. Other leaders in this movement include Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman and Samuel Gipp. Riplinger’s main book is New Age Bible Versions, and we will work primarily from this.⁹ This book has been called “erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate and logically indefensible”, and Riplinger’s “reasoning contradictory and convoluted”.¹⁰ That criticism is quite a mouthful, but every word of it is correct.

Amongst the claims that Riplinger makes are: first, that “the new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV”; second, that “The Greek text” behind the new translations of the New Testament “was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist”; third, that there is “an alliance between the new versions of the Bible (the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Living Bible and others) and the chief conspirators in the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion”.¹¹ As we shall see, none of these claims are true.

Easier or Harder

With regard to point one, I will not spend a lot of time refuting Riplinger’s arguments that “the new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV”, for a much better solution to that problem presents itself. That is, read for yourself, say, Amos from the OT and Romans from the NT in both the KJV and the modern translation of your choice. Then decide which is the easiest. I am confident that any unbiased reader would find the new translation easier, probably much easier. The simple reason for that would be that the KJV is in the English of four hundred years ago, which we no longer use except when doing Shakespeare, while the new versions are in the English of today or close to it.

Associated with that, however, is the issue of words used in the KJV that are no longer used, and those that have changed their meaning, sometimes dramatically, over the last four hundred years. There are, in fact, many words in the KJV that are not correctly understood today. As far back as 1952 The Revised Standard Version (RSV) translators made a lengthy list of “Misleading Words” in the KJV, which they had altered in their version.

These included, “advertise (thee)” (Num 24:14), which they translated as “let you know”; “cunning” (Gen. 25:27; 1 Sam. 16:16), which became “skilful”; “feebleminded” (1 Thess. 5:14), which became “fainthearted”; and “conversation” (1 Pet. 3:1-2), which became “behavior”.¹² This is not to say the KJV was wrong when it originally made these translations, but rather that the meanings of these words have changed in the course of four hundred years. Those four examples from the KJV demonstrate that a wrong understanding of what the Scriptures are saying, what God is saying, can occur because of how English words change their meanings. This is an ongoing problem, because language is continually changing.

The Greek New Testament and B.F. Westcott

The second point made by Gayle Riplinger is that the Greek text of the NT behind the modern translations was “drastically altered by a Spiritualist”. I will not go into great detail about the issues concerning the Greek texts of the NT.¹³ However a few points do need to be made.

First, today there are over five thousand ancient copies of the Greek NT or part thereof for scholars to examine. That is a great treasure trove for textual Bible scholars. At numerous places there are variant readings in these documents and these scholars have to determine at each point which is the reading most likely to be correct, so that they can present an accurate Greek base for the work of translation. The process is a complicated one, but one of the main principles is that the older manuscripts (that is, the documents nearer to the originals in time) are more likely to be correct than the later ones.

However, the translators of the KJV had a Greek textual base, formed from just a limited number of more recent copies of the Greek text. Most scholars agree that this means that the textual base for the KJV NT was less accurate than the one usually used for the modern translations.¹⁴

When Riplinger says that the edition of the Greek text behind the new translations was “drastically altered by a Spiritualist”, she is referring to Anglican Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 – 1901), whom she also calls “a pirate”.¹⁵ Bishop Westcott was one of the most important of the dedicated scholars examining the Greek text to try and establish what the originals said.

Riplinger spends most of one chapter criticizing B.F. Westcott (and his associate F.J.A. Hort), and making numerous suggestions that he was into the occult and held New Age beliefs.¹⁶ Then in a footnote, but only in a footnote, she says, that this is all “speculation on my part.”¹⁷

It is true that B.F. Westcott did belong for a short time to what was known as the “Ghostlie Guild”. This group set out to investigate supernatural phenomena. Westcott’s own account of this says,

Many years ago I had occasion to investigate ‘spiritualistic’ phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion … It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope.¹⁸

In other words, Westcott investigated Spiritualism but rejected it for biblical reasons.

It can, therefore, be safely said that B.F. Westcott was not a Spiritualist. Yet Riplinger gives no concrete evidence to support her claim to the contrary. She just makes unsubstantiated accusations, seemingly to shed doubt on his work and thus pour doubt on modern translations of the New Testament.

In fact, she is getting him confused with William Wynn Westcott (1848 – 1925), who did practice various forms of occultism.¹⁹ Indeed, she even seems to think that they were the same person. However, they were two very different men. Probably the only things they had in common were that they had the same surname, lived in the same century and for most of the time in the same country. Their lives, careers and beliefs were very different. As far as can be established, they were not even related. B.F. Westcott was a major scholar researching the Greek NT, but he was not a Spiritualist.²⁰ Riplinger’s claims about him, when examined, are appalling examples of misrepresentation.

In addition, studies in the Greek Text of the NT have progressed since the days of Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Those involved in NT textual analysis today and translators of the modern versions have not been uncritical slaves to their way of thinking.

Are New Translations a New Age Plot?

Riplinger’s third accusation is that all the new Bible translations are in “an alliance with “the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion”.

First, let me state that I believe that New Age teachings are wrong and contrary to Christian beliefs. I also believe that “a One World Religion” is neither desirable nor possible, unless it is most clearly the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore if I believed such an alliance existed, I would strongly oppose it. But what Riplinger is claiming here is just not true.

What Riplinger appears to be saying is that all the translators of all the new Bible versions are promoting New Age beliefs, either deliberately or accidentally. In fact, as has been seen, she argues that the translators and their translations are in “an alliance” with the New Age movement.

For example, she states that in the New Age movement “Buddha, Krishna and Lucifer became ‘the Christ’, ‘the Lord’, and ‘the One’” and modern Bible translators have copied this, she says, by changing “Jesus and Jehovah to ‘the Christ’, ‘the Lord’ and ‘the One’”²¹ She then makes a selection of specific translations in the KJV and compares them with the “new versions” to support this, generally neglecting to give biblical references, thus making checking difficult.²²

To take one example, she objects that modern translations do not use the name “Jehovah”. The Hebrew word thus translated is what is known as the Tetragrammaton (the four letters—YHWH or JHVH).²³ The KJV translates this word a handful of times as “Jehovah”, but it also translates the same word as “LORD” (in capital letters) many, many times.²⁴ She says the modern translations use “Lord” instead of Jehovah, but they are only doing what the KJV did in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, it can be fairly argued that in this they are following the example of the translators of the KJV.

Related to that she also argues that “When the new versions do use ‘Lord’, they like to use it alone” and not in such phrases as “the Lord Jesus” and “Lord Jesus Christ.” This, she says, is to bring biblical language into line with Hindu and cultic usage.²⁵

Amongst the examples she gives are Acts 19:10 and 1 Cor. 16:22. In the Acts reference the KJV has “the word of the Lord Jesus” and the NIV and the NASB “the word of the Lord”.²⁶ In First Corinthians the KJV has “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ” and the NIV and NASB have “If any man love not the Lord”. The reason for this is simply that the best Greek manuscripts do not have the words which have been omitted in the NIV and NASB, so therefore the translators did not include them.

It is very striking, however, that the phrases “the Lord Jesus” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” or similar appear in plenty of other places in the modern translations. It is clear that there has not been a plot to remove them. See, for example, Acts 2:36; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; Rom. 1:4; 5:1 & 21; 6:23; 1 Cor. 1:1-10; 2 Cor. 1:2 & 3; 1 Pet. 1:3 and many more. If these new versions were a plot to ally with New Age or to remove our Lord’s true nature from the Scriptures, then you would expect that changes would have been made in every case, not just a few. What is really happening is that the translators are responding to what they believe to be the most accurate Greek text.

In addition, Riplinger argues that modern translations use “a son of God” or “a son of man” in reference to Christ, rather than “the Son of God” or “the son of Man” as in the KJV. This she says is to fit in with the New Age idea of God having many sons, not just one.²⁷ Illogically, the list she gives of “a son” translations includes one reference (Mark 15:39) where the NIV, the NASB and the RSV all have “the son” not “a son”.

However, the facts are that though “the” is replaced by “a” in some instances, usually where the definite article is omitted in the Greek, there are many other occurrences where the NIV and the NASB, for example, have “the Son”. These include: Matt. 8:20; 12:8, 32 & 40; Mk. 2:28; 8:38; 10:45; Jn. 1:34; 3:14; Acts 7:56; Rom. 1:4; Gal. 2:20; and Heb. 4:14. Thus Riplinger’s claim is totally unjustified.

Another common complaint from those in the KJV-Only camp is that the Trinitarian reference in 1 Jn. 5:7 does not appear in modern translations. This is true with the exception of the New King James (NKJV), which has it. Verse 7 in the KJV says, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” The NIV says, “For there are three that testify” and then goes directly to verse 8, with “the Spirit, the water and the blood”. Though there is a variety of wording in other recent translations, all consulted (apart from the NKJV) omit the Trinitarian reference.

The reason for this omission in the modern versions is that there are very good reasons to believe that these words were not part of the original letter. In fact, those words in the KJV have not been found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the eleventh century, and even then it was written in the margin by a different hand, apparently at a much later date. All the earlier manuscripts do not include it.²⁸ While the sentiments in that verse are true, those words are not a genuine part of 1 John.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that James White argues that the NIV is stronger on the deity of Christ than is the KJV, and he is correct. He gives a chart with twelve key passages on the deity of Christ. In this he demonstrates that the NIV is stronger in this regard than the KJV in six of those references. The KJV is only stronger than the NIV in just one on that list. The NASB is also stronger than the KJV in this collection of verses.²⁹

For example, in Rom. 9:5 the NIV says, “Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised!” The KJV has “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever”. And again Titus 2:13 says “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in the NIV, but “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” in the KJV. In each of these readings the NIV clearly calls Jesus God, but this is much less clear in the KJV. It is simply not true that such translations of the Bible as the NIV are trying to remove the deity of Christ from the pages of Scripture.

Riplinger’s handling of these things is confused and confusing. She jumps from one thing to another, with little sign of logical thought. Her accusations are also untrue, unfair and they defame some honorable people.

The Original KJV

It is also worth pointing out that the KJV of today is not exactly the same as the KJV of 1611. There were a number of mistakes in the original KJV, which were corrected in later editions. Mistakes can slip in however careful translators are.

Perhaps the most significant was the second part of Mk 10:18, which in the 1611 rendering read “There is no man good, but one, that is God.” According to that, God is a man. In 1645 this was corrected to “There is none good but one, that is, God”, which is how it appears in today’s KJV. This in itself disproves the King James-Only claim that the original KJV was directly inspired by God.

In addition, the KJV originally included the Apocrypha.³⁰ Protestants have generally been against including the Apocrypha in with the OT and the NT, believing that, though it may be helpful, it is not the Word of God. Ironically, the KJV-Only advocates also strongly reject the Apocrypha. For example, Jack T. Chick, another in the KJV-Only camp, admits that the Apocrypha was included in the KJV “on a temporary basis”. But this was the work of Satan, for “Satan has tried desperately to put the ‘Apocrypha’ in the Old Testament.” He also says, “The Apocrypha is a blasphemy against the Word of God”.³¹

Other King James Defenders

Not all defenders of the King James Version advocate a KJV-Only stance. There are some, for example, who prefer the KJV, but do not forbid the use of other translations. Some of these do so because they believe the Greek Text behind the KJV is better than the one behind the modern translations. These include Wilbur N. Pickering, Harry Sturz and Zane Hodges.³² Others, it seems, do so simply because it is the translation that they are used to.

Summary

We have seen, then, that there is, in one sense, no difference between the KJV and modern translations, in that they all are translations from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV was not directly inspired by God, as some claim. But, on the other hand, there are two major differences betweens the KJV and recent versions. The first is that the KJV is hard to read and difficult to understand, while the modern translations are much easier to read and comprehend. Secondly, the Greek text behind the modern translations is better than that behind the KJV.

This means that Christians should not be prisoners to the KJV-Only position. There are a number of very good modern translations of the Bible, including the NIV and the English Standard Version. These are much easier to read and understand and can be a great blessing to your soul.

To further aid your thinking on this issue another article will follow in a later edition of Pneuma Review called “What is the Best Bible Translation?”

PR

Coming in the Spring 2013 Issue:

Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation?

Notes

¹ James R. White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1995), 3-4. (See also James White’s website: Alpha and Omega Ministries, http://aomin.org)
² Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible (London: Hodder, 2001), 71-80, 86-88, 114-23.
³ McGrath, Beginning, 141-65, 172-88. King James particularly objected to some of the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible, some of which said uncomplimentary things about Kings.
⁴ See the Dedication to King James 1 in the different editions of the KJV. See also McGrath, Beginning, 188-96, who quotes from the KJV Preface, which does not appear in all KJV editions.
⁵ McGrath, Beginning, 164, 206-207.
⁶ McGrath, Beginning, 207, 277-85.
⁷ There had been major revisions of the KJV in Britain in 1885 (RV) and America in 1901 (ASV), but these never gained great popularity, F.F. Bruce, The English Bible (London: Methuen, 1963), 135-152, 185. The New King James Version has proved more popular but this was not published until 1982.
⁸ For a detailed, calm and rational discussion of the issues in this debate see D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).
⁹ Most people I have encountered who promote King James-Only views quote Riplinger more than anyone else.
¹⁰ Bob and Gretchen Passaintino, “New Age Bible Versions: A Critical Review”; Copyright 1994, Bob and Gretchen Passaintino, permission to quote granted by Answers In Action, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, California, 92628; Tel. (714) 646 9042.
¹¹ G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls: AV Publications, 1993), 1-3. (Page numbers seem to vary slightly in the different editions.)
¹² An Introduction to the RSV of the Old Testament (NY: Nelson, 1952), 83-88.
¹³ For a good introduction to textual criticism of the NT, see Carson, KJV Debate, 15-78.
¹⁴ For information about the Greek Text used for the KJV, see Carson, KJV Debate, 33-37.
¹⁵ Riplinger, New Age, 397. Riplinger also claims that God judged Westcott for his mishandling of the Greek text of the NT by making him virtually voiceless, New Age, 2 & 448. When these claims are examined, they are clearly a gross distortion of the facts, see Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1903)1:198, 272-73.
¹⁶ Riplinger, New Age, 397-428. See also Westcott, Life and Letters, 1:117-19. For a balanced view on this see James May, “Westcott and the Ghostly Guild”, viewed 19 Oct. 2012, www.westcotthort.com/jmay/ghostlieguild.html.
¹⁷ Riplinger, New Age, 676-77, note 128.
¹⁸ B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893), 11.
¹⁹ “William Wynn Westcott”, viewed 17 Oct. 2012, www.golden-dawn.org/biowestcott.html.
²⁰ For more information about Bishop B.F. Westcott, see Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott.
²¹ Riplinger, New Age, 14.
²² Riplinger, New Age, 14-22.
²³ The correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is now commonly believed to be “Yahweh,” rather than “Jehovah.”
²⁴ For the uses of Jehovah in the KJV see Gen. 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 17:15; Judg. 6:24; Ps. 83:18; Is. 12:2; 26:4. Why there are these few exceptions is not always clear, but it usually appears to have to do with the Tetragrammaton being especially stressed and when it is being used with other divine names. For more information about this word see R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:212-14.
²⁵ James White has a Christ-honoring chapter that puts KJV-Only views on this subject under the microscope, Controversy, 193-221.
²⁶ Riplinger, New Age, 332.
²⁷ Riplinger, New Age, 264-65
²⁸ For a good discussion on the text of this verse see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1975), 715-17. See also Carson, KJV Debate, 34-36.
²⁹ White, Controversy, 196-97.
³⁰ McGrath, Beginning, 222-28.
³¹ J.T. Chick, The Attack (Chino: Chick Publications).
³² Carson, KJV Debate, 39-40, 105-23; Passaintino, “Review”.